EVANGELICALSAND
CRACKPOTSCIENCE
RobertC. Newman
InterdisciplinaryBiblical Research Institute
BiblicalTheological Seminary
ABSTRACT: Because of the tension which hasdeveloped between the scientific and the evangelical communities in thepast century and a half, Bible believers are often (rightly or wrongly)suspicious of the discoveries and theorizing of modern science. This has led to a rather widespreadattraction to theories viewed as crackpot by scientists and other educatedpeople. Some examples arediscussed and strategies proposed to protect Christians from lookingunnecessarily foolish before the watching world.
Sincethe middle of the nineteenth century, there has been a strong attitude ofdistrust and tension between the scientific and evangelical communities. Such tension, indeed, existed beforethis (and was growing slowly), but the publication of Darwin's Originof Species (1859) andits rapid acceptance by science was the straw that broke the camel'sback. Numerous aggravatingincidents since then have only added fuel to the fire.
Oneresult has been that many Bible-believers are suspicious of any newdiscovery or theory coming from science, especially if it would requirerethinking any traditional Christian teaching, whether biblical ornot. A few have even gone back andrejected long-established science that doesn't fit the simplest reading ofScripture, though there is abundant, repeatable evidence for thescience. Christian youngpeople are often discouraged from entering a career in science, since it isseen as unspiritual or even dangerous. Scientific literacy among evangelical Christians hasbeen rather badly damaged, too.
Infact, some Christians have become so iconoclastic about the findings andmethods of science that they easily fall prey to the many crackpot ideas thatalways seem to be present in society. Meeting such Christians, unbelievers trained in the sciencescome away with the impression that Bible-believers are crackpots, too, andthat the Gospel message is not worthy of serious consideration. This is certainly a great tragedy inview of the task our Lord has set before us.
Whatcan we do about this? I am notgoing to suggest swallowing every idea put forth in the name of science, evenby prestigious mainstream scientists and scientific organizations. Thereare substantial anti-supernatural biases in science as currently practiced.[1] Christians should be aware ofthese.
Iwill suggest that we also need to be aware of the dangers lurking in theattitudes and thinking that characterize crackpot science. These attitudes will cut us off fromwhat God is actually doing in nature. They may easily lead us to crackpot exegesis of the Bible and to thesort of arrogance that starts cults. We certainly want to avoid all these.
Asusual, Satan has prepared pitfalls on both sides of the good road. We need to realize how weak some ofthese crackpot ideas are. Weneed to know some simple, easily-understood arguments that show thisto be so, in order that we and those we influence will not be sucked in.
Inthis paper, I give a quick tour of some examples of crackpot science. Bibliographic references to proponentsare provided at the head of each section. Most are taken from McIver's massive bibliography[2]and are marked by his catalog numbers.
Flat Earth
240 EthelbertW. Bullinger. Witness of theStars. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1967 (orig. 1893). Bullinger does not actually present his flat earth ideashere, but according to McIver, he later served on the committee of a flat earthsociety.
711 JohnHampden. The Earth in ItsCreation.... London: W. H. Guest, 1880. Charles K. Johnson, president of the International Flat Earth ResearchSociety, interviewed in The Washington Star, April 14, 1978, pp A-1 and A-7.
Itwill probably come as a shock to most Christians that there were evangelicalswho believed the earth was flat as recently as the end of the lastcentury. Much more recent isCharles Johnson in 1978. I don'tknow where Johnson fits on the theological spectrum; he does speakfavorably of Moses in the interview, so would probably be viewed by outsidersas a Bible-believer. And, sad tosay, he might actually be one.
What'swrong with the flat earth view? Itignores some very basic information accessible to all of us. We know from flying in airplanes andtalking over the telephone that the time of day or night is different atdifferent places east or west on the earth; for example, it is noon on the eastcoast of the US when it is only 9 AM on the west coast. The detailed distribution of these timedifferences only fits a more or less round planet. We also have photographs from space,though Johnson (of course) sees the whole space program as an elaborate hoax.
Ourancestors had more excuse for being wrong about this than we do, though anyseaman two centuries ago knew about different times east and west. The standard way of measuring longitudethen was by comparing local noon with a precision clock set to Greenwichtime. Whether Bullinger andHampden thought all these seamen were in on a clever plot against the rest ofus, I do not know. Already by the1700s surveying techniques were well-developed enough to make quitecompetent globes of the earth's features.
Geocentrism
194 GerardusD. Bouw. With Every Wind ofDoctrine: Biblical, Historical and Scientific Perspectives on Geocentricity. Cleveland: TychonianSociety, 1984.
Merrill A.Cohen. "Heliocentrism vs.Geocentrism: Defiance or Defenseof the Gospel?" Paperdelivered at the Eastern regional meeting of the Evangelical TheologicalSociety, April 2, 1993.
525 R. G.Elmendorf. How toScientifically Trap, Test and Falsify Evolution. Bradford, PA: Bible-Science Association of Western Pennsylvania, 1976.
562 JohnFinleyson. God's Creation ofthe Universe As It Is.... London: 1837 (orig. 1832).
702 Marshalland Sandra Hall. The ConnectionBetween Evolution Theory and the Coming Together of the True Church. Lakeland Park, FL: P/R, c1977.
716 JamesHanson. A New Interest inGeocentricity. Minneapolis: Bible-Science Association, c1979.
757 Edward F.Hills. Space Age Science. Des Moines, IA: ChristianResearch Press, c1979 (orig. c1964).
1047 StefanMarinov. Eppur Si Muove. Brussels: CBDS - Pierre Liebert, 1977.
WalterR. van der Kamp. The Heart ofthe Matter. 8611 Armstrong Ave., Burnaby,B.C., Canada, 1967.
Thereare certainly some geocentrists still around, as you can see from recentpublication dates in the above list. And one of them, Edward F. Hills, has had considerable influence inthe King James only controversy. Geocentrists agree in believing that the earth is the center of thingsand that the sun goes around the earth rather than the earth around thesun. They differ among themselveson whether or not the earth is completely stationary, or rotates once a day onits own axis.
Exegetically,geocentrists that have the earth absolutely still would seem to be on moresolid ground than the rotating-earth variety. There are several biblical references to the sunrising, the world not moving, plus Joshua's command for the sun to stop, but nopassages that tell us whether during the course of a year it is the earth thatgoes around the sun or vice versa. I don't have space here to deal with the hermeneutical assumptionsof geocentrists,[3]except to note that they reject the very reasonable suggestion that allthese passages are looking at matters from the perspective of one standing onthe surface of the earth rather than of one looking down from space. God does condescend to speak to us inhuman language.
What'swrong with an absolutely still earth? Well, for one thing, every star must travel much faster than the speedof light to make it around the earth in one twenty-four hour day. Also, we can actually bounce radarsignals off the moon and the three closest planets, Mercury, Venus andMars. We can measure how far away eachof them is by noting the time it takes the signal to return; and how fast eachis moving relative to us by using the technique police radar uses to catchspeeders. As a result we know thatthe moon and these planets are moving too slowly to make it around the earth inone day.
Whatabout those geocentrists who admit the earth turns on its axis once a day butdeny that the earth moves around the sun? Have you ever noticed how, in the summer, you get lots of bugssplattered on your car's windshield but very few on the rear window? In the same way, the earth gets lots ofmeteors splattered on its front side as it travels around the sun (theside you're on after midnight and before noon) but very few on the back side(after noon but before midnight). Every amateur stargazer knows you'll usually see more meteors aftermidnight than before. Besidesthis, Newton's laws of motion and gravity make complete hash out of anygeocentric view, and it is such laws C not geocentric ones Cthat are used to send vehicles into orbit around the earth, the moon and eventhe sun.[4] Geocentrists, too, have troubleexplaining the success of the space program.
Small Universe
HaroldCamping. What is the Size ofthe Universe. Oakland, CA: Family Radio, 1981.
1191 RichardNiessen. Starlight and the Ageof the Universe. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1983.
ManyChristians believe the earth is only a few thousand years old. But if so, most astronomical objects wecan see with a good telescope appear to be so far away that light from themwould not have reached us yet. Onesolution to this problem has been proposed by Harold Camping of FamilyRadio. He claims that the wholeuniverse is actually only a few light years across, so that light from distantobjects reached earth shortly after creation.
Wecannot yet travel out to the stars to see who is right, but we don't need tosuspend judgment until we can. InCamping's view, the stars which appear farthest away are really just smallerand dimmer than the others. Butthis makes these stars so small that their gravity wouldn't be sufficient tohold the hot gases together nor provide high enough temperatures to run theirnuclear furnaces. Inaddition, we can directly measure the speed at which individual stars aremoving toward or away from us. Onthe average their sideways motions should be comparable, but this only worksout if the stars are scattered through a very large universe asastronomers claim.[5]
Changing Speed of Light
1191 RichardNiessen. Starlight and the Ageof the Universe. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1983.
Trevor Normanand Barry Setterfield. TheAtomic Constants, Light and Time. Australia: Flinders University, 1987.
1488 BarrySetterfield. The Velocity ofLight and the Age of the Universe. Australia: Creation Science Association, 1983.
BarrySetterfield has proposed another way of responding to the problem that thetravel time for light to reach us from the most distant parts of the universeseems too long for a recent creation. Rather than arguing that the universe is really very small (as HaroldCamping does), he admits the universe is very large but claims that the speedof light right after creation was enormously higher than it is now, so thatlight from distant objects reached earth soon after creation. He and Norman argue that measurementsmade in the past few centuries for the speed of light show that it has beendecreasing, though it has not changed much recently.
Butto be able to see objects 10 billion light-years away if the universe is only10 thousand years old means that the speed of light since creation must average a million times larger than it isnow! If the speed of light wereonly a thousand timesfaster early in human history (as Setterfield claims), we should observe somedrastic consequences. Einstein'sfamous equation E = mc2 relates the conversion of matter to energy,where c is the speed of light. Ifwe keep the masses of objects constant but let c be larger by a thousand backin patriarchal times, then the heat output of the sun and of radioactive elementswould be a million times what it is now, frying everything in sight! If instead we require that E beconstant to avoid this problem, then the masses of objects will be a milliontimes smaller, and neither humans nor air would have been heavy enough to keepfrom floating away from earth and life would have been impossible.[6]Thus we have clear historical evidence that the speed of light has neverchanged by anything close to what Setterfield needs.
Ice Canopy
595 Walter T.Galusha. Fossils and the Wordof God. New York: Exposition Press, 1964.
1465 CarlTheodore Schwarze. The Harmonyof Science and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, c1942.
1467 CarlTheodore Schwarze. The Marvelof Earth's Canopies. Westchester, IL: Good News Publishers, c1957.
1647 IsaacNewton Vail. The Earth'sAnnular System; or, the Waters Above the Firmament. Pasadena, CA: AnnularWorld, 1912 (orig. 1874).
1726 SamuelWebb. The Creation and theDeluge... Philadelphia: privately published,1854.
1732 V. LutherWestberg. Mystery of the BuriedRedwood. Napa, CA: privately published, [1963].
ManyChristians believe that much of Noah's flood came from a vast water-canopyabove the earth. Most hold thatthe canopy consisted of water vapor,in order to explain how it remained suspended.[7] But a number have proposed it was anice canopy. Schwarze (in #1465)even claimed the ice was a solid layer miles thick! Just how sunlight made it though such a canopy when it won'teven penetrate a mile of ocean is not easy to imagine. Vail even had a rock canopy, whichcollapsed to form the geologic strata!
Noneof these are able to explain what would keep such a solid canopy in orbit,where it would be subjected to enormous tidal forces and unstable to theslightest fluctuations in gravitational attraction by the earth, moon andsun. Studies of glaciers show thateven a few hundred feet of ice produces pressures sufficient for the ice toflow like syrup, so that a thick ice canopy could not retain is shape.
Evenvapor canopies face serious physical difficulties. Every 30 feet of liquid water suspendedin the atmosphere as vapor will increase the gas pressure at the earth'ssurface by one atmosphere. Sojust 270 feet of water in the canopy means the surface pressure would be tentimes what it is now.
And270 feet would not amount to much in the context of a global flood.[8] One would guess that even this muchvapor canopy would produce a severe case of global warming (runaway greenhouseeffect). And all of this isunnecessary if we see the Gen 1:7 "waters above the firmament" asclouds in the atmosphere, which squares better with the reference later inIsrael's history to "waters above the heavens" in Ps 148:4.
Astronomical Confirmation of Joshua'sLong Day
547 Eugene W.Faulstich. Moses the Astronomerand Historian Par Excellence. Rossie, IA: Chronology-History Research Institute, n.d.
755 HaroldHill. How to Live Like a King'sKid. Plainfield, NJ: Logos International, c1974.
1403 HarryRimmer. The Harmony of Scienceand Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1936.
1623 CharlesA. L. Totten. Joshua's Long Dayand the Dial of Ahaz. Merrimac, MA: Destiny, c1968 (orig. 1890).
Somethingvery striking happened in the conquest of Canaan, when God answered Joshua'sprayer and defeated Israel's enemies at Gibeon (Joshua 10). The traditional understanding,reflected in most translations and commentaries, is that God causedthe sun and moon to stand still or (equivalently) the earth to stoprotating. Some evangelicals,recognizing an uncertainty in the meaning of the Hebrew verb employed andfeeling God may have used a more economical miracle than this, have madeother suggestions.[9] I personally see no reasonwhy God could not have chosen to stop the earth, but it is certainly notunorthodox to investigate whether this is what the text really says.
Claimsthat the lengthened day has been confirmed by astronomical observations,however, appear to be hoaxes.[10] Hill's story Creprinted in newspapers throughout the US in the 1970s Cis that computers at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MDdetected a missing day in past time, and that 23 hours and 20 minutes of itwere found at Joshua's time, and the other 40 minutes when the sun went backward10 degrees in Isaiah's day. NASA denies any such discovery. Who is right?
Todetect such a "missing day" one would have to have two sets ofinformation to compare, one of which would be missing a day found in theother. These sets would presumablybe historical information on the one hand and astronomical extrapolationon the other. If, for instance, weknew the exact date, time and place by historical records of some eclipseof the sun before the time of Joshua, and then by calculating back from the present,we found that the eclipse "should" have taken place exactly one dayearlier than the historical report says, we would have such a day missing. However, the earliest report of areasonably datable eclipse known (as of 1970) comes in 1217 BC, after Joshua'stime. In any case, we can rarelydate such events to the exact day in ancient times, much less to a fewminutes. There appears to be noway for us to detect the sort of discrepancy Hill alleges.
Avery similar story is told by Rimmer, who says an astronomer friend ofProf. C. A. Totten found the same two missing times by (hand) calculations latein the last century. The Tottenbook Rimmer mentions, however, has no such story, but merely Totten's owncalculations. Totten, though,finds his missing day by accepting the date of creation proposed by JabezB. Dimbleby of the British Chronological Association (September 22, 4000 BC),and finding that this was a Monday instead of the Sunday expected from hisreading of Scripture, so one day must be missing from past time. He then assigns 40 minutes of this (=10 degrees of sun movement) to Isaiah's time and the rest to Joshua's. No independent confirmation here!
Anti-Quantum
71 Thomas G.Barnes. Physics of theFuture: A Classical Unificationof Physics. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, c1983.
73 JosemariaGonzalez Barredo. TheSubquantum Ultramathematical Definition of Distance, Space and Time. Washington, DC: MIAS Press,b1985.
1003 CharlesWilliam Lucas, Jr. Soli Deo Gloria: A Renewed Call for Reformation. Temple Hills, MD: ChurchComputer Services, c1985.
Quantumtheory, developed early in the twentieth century to explain the behavior ofatoms and smaller objects, is admittedly very strange. An electron at one time seems to be aparticle; at another, a wave. Sometimesthe energy of an atom can only change by steps rather than smoothly. Light is only radiated or absorbedin little packets, called quanta. Some physicists have even claimed that an electron has neither positionnor velocity until one of these is measured![11]
Understandablymany Christians have found this too much to swallow, and have rejected thewhole theory. Some of them, withtraining in physics, have sought to construct alternative theories, butnone of these have attracted favorable attention in the scientificcommunity. Admittedly,reconciliation between quantum theory and relativity (below) has not yetbeen achieved, and one or both of these theories will probably have to bemodified before this happens.
Butthere is a real strangeness in the phenomena quantum theory seeks to explain,and there is no reason to believe the phenomena will go away. It is certainly possible that we willneed to adjust some of our traditional views of reality to fit what God isactually telling us in these observations. We should not be surprised if our commonsense notions do notwork well in circumstances far different from those in which we were created tofunction. Our God is an awesomeGod, and the universe He made has many surprises.
Anti-Relativity
71 Thomas G.Barnes. Physics of theFuture: A Classical Unificationof Physics. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, c1983.
73 JosemariaGonzalez Barredo. TheSubquantum Ultramathematical Definition of Distance, Space and Time. Washington, DC: MIAS Press,b1985.
1003 CharlesWilliam Lucas, Jr. Soli DeoGloria: A Renewed Call forReformation. Temple Hills, MD: Church Computer Services, c1985.
1517 Harold S.Slusher and Francisco Ramirez. TheMotion of Mercury's Perihelion: AReevaluation of the Problem and Its Implications for Cosmology and Cosmogony. El Cajon, CA: Institute forCreation Research, c1984.
1729 JamesPaul Wesley, ed. Progress inSpace-Time Physics. Blumberg, Germany: Benjamin Wesley, 1987.
Relativity,too, has a great deal of strangeness. As an object moves faster and faster, it appears to shrink, gain weight,and experience time passing more and more slowly. In addition, it cannot be made to go faster than the speedof light, no matter how much energy it is given. Einstein's general theory of relativity adds spacecurvature and black holes to this strange brew. No wonder, again, that many Christians are skeptical ofall this.
Partof the problem, though, has been a tendency among secularists to talk as thoughmoral relativism issomehow supported by Einstein's physics. This is nonsense. There is no reason to believe that physics tells us anything aboutmorality. In any case, relativityin physics has an absolute, the speed of light, whereas traditional Newtonianphysics saw time and space as absolutes. We as Christians realize that God is absolute, but we don't know fromthis whether He has conferred any such character on light or time orneither.
Itis foolish to expend the energy we should reserve for fighting moral relativismby attacking relativity in modern physics. The evidence for both the special and general theories isexcellent.[12] Every device built for acceleratingsubatomic particles to high speeds must take these phenomena into account inorder even to function. Thebending of light by a massive object and the reddening of light when escapingfrom a gravitational field have both been observed as predicted.
Gospel in the Stars
240 EthelbertW. Bullinger. Witness of theStars. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1967 (orig 1893).
572 Kenneth C.Fleming. God's Voice in theStars: Zodiac Signs and BibleTruth. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux, 1981
960 WalterLang, ed. Genesis and Science. Richfield, MN: privatelypublished, 1982.
1348 Howard B.Rand. The Stars Declare God'sHandiwork. Merrimac, MA: Destiny, c1944.
1485 Joseph A.Seiss. The Gospel in the Stars. Grand Rapids: Kregel, c1972(orig. c1882).
Thisis not strictly a scientific question, but more a historical one, like the NASAcomputer story, above. Bullingerand Seiss popularized the work of Frances Rolleston, Mazzaroth: or, theConstellations (Keswick,England, 1863), who claimed that the constellations go back to patriarchal times,and that the Gospel is presented pictorially in them. The suggestion is quite an interesting one.
Unfortunately,Rolleston made considerable use of the Arabic names of individual stars inthe constellations, engaging in considerable "misleading andunfounded" etymologizing to get her hints of what each meant,according to the evangelical astronomer E. W. Maunder.[13] With no significant Arabic literaturebefore the rise of Islam, we cannot be sure these names are really ancient, andmost of them are merely names of parts of the constellations (head, foot, eye,etc.). And as C. S. Lewis haspointed out in another context, "no story can be devised by the wit of manwhich cannot be interpreted allegorically by the wit of some otherman."[14] The same applies to star patterns.
Maunderhimself believes that the 48 "primitive" constellationsgive evidence of being designed about 2700 BC.[15] He feels they might possiblycontain some such material, if the designers were familiar with some of theincidents preserved to us in the early part of Genesis.[16] Consequently, this whole proposal mustbe labelled unproved, and ought not to be spread about so confidentlyas a number are currently doing.
Gospel in Chinese Characters
870 C. H. Kangand Ethel R. Nelson. TheDiscovery of Genesis: How theTruths of Genesis Were Found Hidden in the Chinese Language. St. Louis: Concordia, 1979.
894 Kiat TienKhang. Genesis and the Chinese. Payson, AZ: Leaves of Autumn, 1985 (orig. 1950).
1180 Ethel R.Nelson and Richard E. Broadberry. MysteriesConfucius Couldn't Solve. S. Lancaster, MA: Read Books, 1986.
Ihave no intention of investigating this suggestion, having background inneither the Chinese language nor its history. I do think this is probably another illustration of Lewis'remark on the ease of allegorizing.
Numerology
210 Keith L.Brooks, ed. OverwhelmingMathematical Evidence of the Divine Inspiration of the Scriptures. N. Syracuse, NY: BookFellowship, n.d. (tract # 1219).
HaroldCamping. 1994? New York: Vantage, 1992.
872 ReubenLuther Katter. The History ofCreation and Origin of the Species. Minneapolis: Theotes Logos Research, 1984 (orig. 1967).
1004 JerryLucas and Del Washburn. Theomatics: God's Best Kept Secret Revealed. New York: Stein and Day,1977.
1122 Henry M.Morris. Many Infallible Proofs. Sand Diego, CA: Creation-Life, 1974. Presented with some qualifications.
1250 C. G.Ozanne. The First 7000Years: A Study in BiblicalChronology. New York: Exposition Press, c1970. Millennium will begin in 1996.
1253 IvanPanin. Bible Chronology. Ft. Langley, BC: Assoc. ofthe Covenant People, c1950 (orig. 1923).
1550 James A.Stiverson. The Harmony of God'sLaws in Creation. privately published, c1986.
Thebelief that the Bible has an elaborate system of numerical symbolism hasbeen around at least since the beginning of the Christian era.[17] It resembles pagan number mysticismgoing back still further to Pythagoras. Biblical numerology is not explicitly endorsed by Scripture, thoughmany have found warrant for it in the mysterious 666 of Revelation and theunusually frequent use of the numbers seven, twelve and forty.
Givena desire to find spiritual significance for the otherwise mundane numbers inScripture, and given the enormous variety of manipulations possible withmathematics, it is easy to "find" all sorts of coincidences. This has frequently been used to provethe inspiration of Scripture, but also of the Qur'an and the Talmud. This ability to "prove" inconsistentrevelations, plus the many conflicting views of the significance of eachnumber, is self-defeating.[18] It would be impossible to disprove allthe speculations which have been based on numerology, but we will soon knowwhether Harold Camping's calculations for the second coming are worth anything.
Velikovsky
588 OrvalFriedrich. Early Vikings andthe Ice Age. Elma, IA: privately published, c1984.
1263 DonaldWesley Patten. The BiblicalFlood and the Ice Epoch. Seattle: Pacific Meridian, 1966.
1264 Donald W.Patten, Ronald R. Hatch and Loren C. Steinhauer. The Long Day of Joshua and Six Other Catastrophes. Seattle: Pacific Meridan,1973.
1434 UurasSaarnivaara. Can The Bible BeTrusted? Minneapolis: Osterhus, 1983.
1555 James E.Strickling, Jr. Origins CToday's Science, Tomorrow's Myth. New York: Vantage, c1986.
1561 LutherSunderland. Darwin'sEnigma: Fossils and Other Problems. San Diego, CA: MasterBooks, 1984.
1703 RalphFranklin Walworth. Subdue theEarth. New York: Delta, 1977.
1715 FredWarshofski. Doomsday: The Science of Catastrophe. New York: Pocket Books,1977.
Thespeculations of the Russian medical doctor Immanuel Velikovsky Cthat miracles such as the exodus and Joshua's long day resulted from the planetVenus passing very close to the earth C attracted considerable attention oncollege campuses in the 1960s. Some evangelicals later Christianized Velikovsky's views as part of acatastrophic interpretation of earth's history. Both scientifically and historically such theories could becalled crackpot. The physicalforces Velikovsky and his followers invoke won't do what he wants them todo, and the historical sources he quotes don't mean what he says they do.[19]
How Should We Respond?
Theseexamples by no means exhaust the crackpot theories and scientific frauds thathave been influential in evangelical circles. I still remember being told on several occasions in the1960s that astronomers had discovered a cube 1500 miles on a side rapidlyapproaching the earth.[20] And we haven't even mentioned theconsiderable variety of quackery flourishing in health and medicine.[21]
Ideassuch as these are appealing to many. Some people, perhaps, are the sort that easily jump to conclusions,impressed by the big picture and too impatient to be bothered with details orto check what someone with more knowledge might have to say. Others may find these ideas to be verycongenial to their own views and useful as an apologetic against someconflicting view which troubles them. And some may just want to be in on something special, to belong tosome inner circle which really understands what life is all about. In any case, these are temptations wemust be wary of, for our God is truth and he wants his people to care for truththe way he does.
Thereare principles which can help protect us against falling for crackpot sciencejust as good hermeneutical principles protect us from crackpotexegesis. These are rooted inScriptural principles for making decisions about matters of fact.[22]
(1) We shouldbe fair. We should judge ideas welike by the same standard we judge ideas we don't like (Matt 7:1-5).
(2) We shouldknow what can be said against our pet ideas as well as what can be said forthem (Prov 18:17).
(3) We shouldseek out people (especially Christians) with special training in areasparticularly relevant to the idea we are examining (Prov 12:15).
(4) We shouldsee what sort of cause is being proposed for the phenomenon beingadvocated and what evidence we have that the cause is adequate to producethe effect (Amos 3:3-6).
(5) We shouldask what sorts of evidence support this claim. Do we have the testimony of multiple, independent,reliable witnesses? (Deut 17:6; 19:15).
(6) Does itseem that any data is being ignored or explained away? (Rom 1:18-20).
(7) We shoulduse caution in adopting a new idea that is not widely accepted (Prov29:20).
(8) We shouldbe careful that our attitude is one of humility and a sincere desire fortruth, rather than seeking recognition, vengeance or such (Prov 21:2-3;Mic 6:8; John 5:44).
Conclusions
EvangelicalChristians are by no means the only people afflicted by crackpot science. A visit to any well-stocked secularbookstore will turn up hundreds of titles promoting such ideas. In fact, Christians who follow thebiblical admonition to shunthe occult will be spared many errors which trouble the New Age movement. So, of course, will the secularists whoreject the supernatural, but they in turn fall for another kind ofcrackpot science, the belief that reality can be adequately explained withoutGod.[23] We need to avoid both dangers.
References: